IUPAC Division of Chemistry and the Environment and CCRF (Committee on Chemistry Research Funding) International Call in the Chemical Sciences

Transcription

1 A showcase program for a cooperation between international funding organizations International Union of Pure Applied Chemistry as represented by its Division of Chemistry the Environment. AGREEMENT between Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Scientific Directorate, R. Pio XI, Alto da Lapa, CEP São Paulo/SP, Brasil, represented by its President, Prof. Dr. Celso Lafer, And National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), Department of Chemical Sciences, 83 Shuangqing Road, Haidian District, Beijing , China, represented by its Executive Deputy Director, Prof. Dr. Wenping Liang, And National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Chemistry, US National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 22230, United States of America, represented the by its Chair of the Division, Prof. Dr. Matthew S. Platz, And Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft e.v. (DFG), German Research Foundation Division of Chemistry Process Engineering, Kennedyallee 40, D Bonn, Germany, represented by its Head of the Division, Dr. Johanna Kowol-Santen, And the International Union of Pure Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), 104 T.W. Alexer Drive, Building 19, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, United States of America, represented by Dr. John D. Petersen, Executive Director of IUPAC, Dr. Laura L. McConnell, President of the IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment, Any other organization wanting to join will be added by an amendment to the present agreement hereinafter referred as the Agreement, at the latest on November 12, It will have the same status as the listed organizations. referred to hereinafter as the Partners on an international joint call for proposals. page 1 of 23

2 Table of contents PREAMBLE Article 1. Purpose of the Agreement Article 2. Duration....3 Article 3. Description of the Call GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE CALL SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES FOR THIS CALL CALL TEXT LETTER OF INTENT STAGE CONTENT OF THE LETTER OF INTENT SCOPE OF LETTER OF INTENT STAGE REVIEW OF THE LETTERS OF INTENT FULL PROPOSAL STAGE CONTENT OF THE FULL PROPOSAL: REVIEW AT FULL PROPOSAL STAGE REVIEW CRITERIA AT THE FULL PROPOSAL STAGE TIME SCHEDULE AND ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN PREPARING THE CALL THE CALL PROCEDURE FUNDING PROCEDURE REPORTING AND FOLLOW UP PROVISIONAL BUDGET FURTHER ASPECTS POSSIBILITY OF EXTENSION OF FUNDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS NON-DISCLOSURE Article 4. Disputes Article 5. Counterparts ANNEX A: APPLICATION FORM FOR LETTERS OF INTENT ANNEX B: APPLICATION FORM FOR FULL PROPOSALS ANNEX C: GOOD PRACTICE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST page 2 of 23

3 Preamble The overall aim of the IUPAC Committee on Chemistry Research Funding (CCRF) is to explore ways by which research organizations agencies responsible for funding chemical research in various countries might exchange information on international trends in funding develop partnerships for projects of mutual interest. IUPAC as a world wide transnational organization will serve as a neutral umbrella being the most appropriate organization to provide the framework for such a longterm program could provide continuing leadership for this activity. Among actions of transnational partnership, multilateral calls for proposals are a desirable goal with respect to the international cooperation of funding agencies research organizations. As a start the Partners aim at a three-year thematic program with joint proposals of three(3) principal investigators from three(3) different countries funded by their respective funding organizations. The motivation of this project is to foster networking between excellent scientists on topics in chemistry exemplified by a program on sustainable chemistry. The topics for this program will be topics of high priority basic science. The participating researchers are encouraged to build research education links between the developing developed world. An option would be to encourage the involvement of PhD students outside the host laboratory s country, e.g., from developing countries. It is emphasized that early career researchers who have established an autonomous or independent research area are also among the applicants addressed with this call. The central coordination of the call will be carried out by a Call Secretariat to be established by the IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment by the end of The Partners therefore agree as follow: Article 1. Purpose of the Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to organize the launch, review funding of a transnational/transcontinental multilateral call for proposals supported by a consortium of funding agencies research organisations, scientifically monitored by IUPAC. Article 2. Duration page 3 of 23

4 This Agreement shall come into force on November 19, 2012 shall terminate on December 31, Article 3. Description of the call 1. General philosophy of the call Administrative simplicity flexibility. Establishment of international best practice rules for joint funding programs. Rapid process: less than twelve (12) months between announcement of the call final funding decision. Written commitment of participating organizations (Call agreement). Identical procedures for all participating researchers. All Principal Investigators (PIs) must come from different countries selected from those that are participating in the call. A PI may only participate in one letter of intent. One joint proposal for each project. Two-step evaluation with letter of intent full proposals. The names of reviewers will remain anonymous. Procedures eligibility cost items will follow the national programs of the participating organizations. Each Partner agency funds its own country part of a successful proposal as well as the related administrative cost. An award could only be made if all the Partners involved in the proposal agree to do so. The overall process will be at no cost for IUPAC. 2. Specific principles for this call Coordination of application review process by a Call Secretariat nominated by in close interaction with IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment Committee members. The Panel is composed of about ten(10) reviewers nominated by both the IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment committee the Partners. The Panel recommendations are reviewed by the Partners who make the final funding decision. Funding period for each collaborative project: three(3) years. Three(3) Principal Investigators from three(3) different countries are submitting a joint proposal. Funding level supports a minimum of PhD student or post-doc position(s) per successful applicant. Successful projects must involve meaningful participation of the investigator (including students postdoctoral fellows) through extended research visits in collaborators laboratories abroad. Travel subsistence expenses are covered by the funding organization of the country of origin. Each organization supports consumables minor equipment in accordance with the organization guidelines. page 4 of 23

5 Representatives involved (committee members) of the IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment researchers from their own research team are not eligible to apply for funding within this program. 3. Call text Announcing the Call: International Call for Proposals on Novel Molecular Supramolecular Theory Synthesis Approaches for Sustainable Catalysis The International Union of Pure Applied Chemistry participating national funding agencies are pleased to issue an international call for proposals in sustainable chemistry. This call is intended to foster multi-national cooperation in sustainable chemistry. All researchers working in the field of sustainable chemistry eligible to apply for financial support from their respective participating national research councils are cordially invited to apply. This program is designed for small teams of three or four principal investigators, encompassing three countries. While larger teams may be considered, it is incumbent upon the team to articulate a clear strong plan that optimizes both scientific coherence effective management of resources. Each team will submit a single, joint proposal. Grants will support basic experimental theoretical research. A successful proposal will have to: 1. Introduce novel approaches to develop a new generation of catalysts in which rare elements are replaced with earth abundant elements; 2. Successfully address a significant environmental problem. This grant program does not support: (i) basic research that focuses on biological techniques, cellular processes, or biomedical problems; (ii) applied research that focuses on extended solids bulk materials, (iii) design, optimization, or other engineering aspects of devices; (iv) engineering aspects of chemistry, such as scaleup, processing, transport dynamics, long-term stability. Research teams interested in this opportunity should be aware of the following important dates: - Letters of intent are due January 14, Full proposals for eligible projects are due March 29, Final results of this call will be communicated to applicants by September 30, Funding of all awards will start no later than January page 5 of 23

6 4. Letter of Intent stage Content of the letter of intent One(1) joint letter of intent per project by a group of three(3) Principal Investigators (PIs) from three(3) different countries. The letter of intent includes detailed information on the PIs it describes the proposed research in brief. (see Annex A). The CV for each PI includes a list of the five(5) most relevant publications, names affiliation of doctoral postdoctoral mentors a list of collaborators in the last four years (maximum of 2 pages). The letter is submitted by a Project Coordinator (PC), representing the single point of contact for all three(3) investigators (PIs) of the joint project. Scope of letter of intent stage This process is designed to assess the maximum number of proposals to help identify the research areas to be needed for the review process. At this early stage, it helps the Partners to: check on national eligibility criteria. identify possible areas of conflicts of interest (see Annex C) Eligibility check based on the letters of intent The Call Secretariat does a first eligibility check on administrative details. The detailed full list of projects is provided to the Partners to let them check on the national eligibility of the applicants. After agreement on eligibility by the Partners, the Call Secretariat informs the Project Coordinators on the status further steps to be taken. 5. Full proposal stage Each eligible joint team submits a single full proposal for this call. Content of the full proposal: The full proposal consists of ten(10) pages maximum for scientific content (figures, diagrams, tables equations included). Additional page(s) for relevant references. Application form covering administrative details a detailed cost table (Annex B). Additional individual partner agency requirements to be added on request. Review at full proposal stage page 6 of 23

7 Involves external written reviews organized by the IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment Committee (monitored by the Call Secretariat) it requires at least three(3) written reviews per submission. Reviews are from external reviewers. These reviewers are different from the panel members, who will discuss the results at the panel meeting. The Panel is composed of about ten(10) reviewers nominated by both the IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment Committee the Partners. Each written review provides an overall score. Each proposal is finally reviewed presented by at least two(2) Panel members (speakers) at the panel meeting. The Panel proposes the scientific evaluation ranking; the Partners consider the evaluation takes the final funding decision (can be done by or video conference). Scientific officers of the Partners are encouraged to attend the Panel meeting (as observers only). Review criteria at the full proposal stage The written reviews of the full proposal stage are finally discussed at the Panel meeting: 1. Scientific merit significance (broader impact) of the project. 2. The scientific collaborative added value. 3. The track record of the applicants. 4. Feasibility of the project taking into account the costs. Each written review provides a single overall score as a starting point for further discussions at the panel meeting. Details are given in the guidelines for reviewers. 6. Time schedule actions to be taken The Partners the IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment Committee agree on the following time schedule the specified actions to be undertaken: Preparing the call - 1 August 2011: The CCRF members suggest a second call for proposals in 2013 at their annual meeting (San Juan, Puerto Rico). - October 2011: The CCRF members have a first draft for a second call in hs. Preliminary title International Call for Proposals in Sustainable Chemistry April 2012: The IUPAC Division Chairs Committee is introduced to the CCRF activities. The IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment expresses interest to take the lead for this second call. It is suggested to adapt the established proven procedures of the first call. page 7 of 23

8 - 28 August 2012: CCRF meeting in Prague, Czech Republic. The Partners suggest a stronger focus for this call for proposals in the broad field of sustainable chemistry. In total six Partners express their interest in this call November 2012: The Call Agreement is submitted for signature to all Partners, to IUPAC representatives. The call procedure - 16 November 2012: Final version of call text guidelines for applicants will be completed agreed to November 2012: Call is announced on websites in print media (IUPAC Partners) January 2013: Deadline for submission of letters of intent to the Call Secretariat (electronic mail, pdf) using template in Annex A. Letters of intent are made available by Call Secretariat for eligibility check by the Partners. - 1 February 2013: Call Secretariat received results of eligibility check suggestions for Panel members by each Partner. The applicants are informed on the next steps to be taken. - Meanwhile, the Call Secretariat works in collaboration with the IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment Committee to work out a list of reviewers panel members March 2013: Closing of the call for full proposals April 2013: Full proposals are made available by Call Secretariat to the Partners April 2013: Administrative work of Partners is finished, additional documents are completed by applicants, where necessary. - Meanwhile, the Call Secretariat representatives of IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment Committee collect at least three(3) written reviews for each full proposal, the list of panel members is modified if necessary, two(2) speakers are appointed from the Panel members, panel members are invited July 2013: All reviews completed collected August 2013: Panel meets at the 44 th World Chemistry Congress in Istanbul, Turkey. The final recommendations are produced conveyed page 8 of 23

9 to the IUPAC Chemistry the Environment Division Committee the Call Secretariat August 2013: The Partners meet at the 44 th World Chemistry Congress in Istanbul, Turkey. The IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment Committee the Call Secretariat provide all the supporting documents (the proposals, reviews, panel summaries rankings) recommended for awards. The Partners decide whether to accept or reject the Panel recommendation. An award could only be made, if all the Partners involved in the proposal agree to do so. Each Partner has a right of refusal. The proposal is declined by all the Partners if only one of them decides to reject September 2013: Last date for notification of results to applicants (rejection/funding reviewer s comments). Notification is prepared by Call Secretariat submitted to the applicants by the Call Secretariat following review by the Partners. The PIs receive anonymous copies of the reviews panel recommendations. In any communication with the PI following notification, IUPAC will keep the confidentiality of the review process. Funding procedure - Funding for all joint proposals no later to start than January Successful applicants to speak at a special session of the Pacifichem Conference in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, December 15-20, Reporting follow up According to national rules each Partner may request his PI(s) to provide progress /or final reports on the status outcome of research activities. A final scientific workshop of all successful applicants will be held during the third year of funding on the occasion of one of the IUPAC conferences. The expenses will be supported by the relevant Partners. As part of a lessons learnt analysis for this call in addition to the usual reports for national projects, the collaborating researchers should provide an insight to the synergy effects their experiences in the trans-national collaborations. 8. Provisional budget Since a reasonable key for the calculation of suitable national contingents could not yet be negotiated, the Partners agree on the following principles: - IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment provides only the scientific monitoring, in connection with the funding agencies/research organizations, page 9 of 23

10 - Each Partner supports its own expenses generated by the program (local secretariat, relevant personnel, videoconference, administrator travel costs, etc.). In case of meeting, the Partner of the hosting country provides the room facilities. - Each Partner will be responsible for the issuance management of awards to their PIs in accordance with the Partner's agency issuance post-award guidelines. (A reasonable estimation for this call might be about 9 to 12 successful applications, with an average of 2 to 3 per Partner)". - Each Partner supports the travel/local expenses of its national reviewer(s) of the IUPAC Division of Chemistry the Environment Committee member(s) from its country. - For reviewers or IUPAC members not affiliated with a participating country, expenses will be covered by the Partners involved in the program to be decided on case by case basis. - No extra fee will be provided to the reviewers. - If extra meetings are required, the travel/local expenses of the participating scientists (laureate applicants granted PhDs/Post-docs), administrators, reviewers involved IUPAC members should be covered by their relevant Partners. 9. Further aspects Possibility of extension of funding The funding period for this call is limited to 3 years. Extensions may occasionally be granted by the relevant Partners. Intellectual property rights Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) should be hled according to special agreements to be negotiated between the relevant funding Partners involved scientists following the national rules. Non-Disclosure It is expected that all Partners involved reviewers will keep all information confidential with respect to the review procedure content. Article 4. Disputes It is agreed that, in the event one of the above provisions raises a problem of construction, or if the Partners identify new problems which are not provided for in page 10 of 23

11 this Agreement, the latter shall start amicable negotiations to solve these problems. The results of these negotiations shall be amended in this Agreement. Any dispute between the Partners relating to the terms of this Agreement shall be settled out of court as soon as possible. If no settlement out of court is possible, the applicant shall ask for the settlement of the dispute before an arbitrary court, which shall rule in accordance with the rules of international law. Unless the Partners decide otherwise in writing, the arbitration regulation of the Committee of the United Nations for International Business Law (CNUDCI) shall apply. Article 5. Counterparts We, the undersigned, do hereby agree to the terms conditions specified in this agreement for an international joint call for proposals including annexes A, B, C. Done in. in original copy(ies) in English page 11 of 23

12 Signed on behalf of Country:. Name: Date:. Signature: page 12 of 23

13 Signed on behalf of Country:. Name: Date:. Signature: page 13 of 23

14 Signed on behalf of Country:. Name: Date:. Signature: page 14 of 23

15 Signed on behalf of Country:. Name: Date:. Signature: page 15 of 23

16 Signed on behalf of Country:. Name: Date:. Signature: page 16 of 23

17 Annex A: Application form for letters of intent Project title Project reference (to be completed by the call secretariat) Administrative details project summary First applicant (Project Coordinator) Family name First name(s) Gender Female Male Date of birth Nationality Applicant's position title Address at the university/research institute University/research institute Street name number PO Box Postal code Cedex Town Phone Web site University degree Doctorate Country Fax Qualifications Second applicant Family name First name(s) Gender Female Male Date of birth Nationality Applicant's position title page 17 of 23

18 Address at the university/research institute University/research institute Street name number PO Box Postal code Cedex Town Phone Web site University degree Doctorate Third applicant Family name First name(s) Country Fax Qualifications Gender Female Male Date of birth Nationality Applicant's position title Address at the university/research institute University/research institute Street name number PO Box Postal code Cedex Town Phone Web site University degree Doctorate Country Fax Qualifications Project summary (Maximum 300 words) page 18 of 23

19 Annex B: Application form for full proposals Project title Project reference (to be completed by the call secretariat) Administrative details project summary First applicant (Project Coordinator) Family name First name(s) Nationality Applicant's position title Address at the university/research institute University/research institute Street name number PO Box Postal code Cedex Town Phone Web site University degree Doctorate Second applicant Family name First name(s) Nationality Applicant's position title Address at the university/research institute University/research institute Street name number page 19 of 23 Country Fax Qualifications PO Box Postal code Cedex Town Phone Web site Country Fax

20 University degree Doctorate Third applicant Family name First name(s) Nationaiity Applicant's position title Address at the university/research institute University/research institute Street name number Qualifications PO Box Postal code Cedex Town Phone Web site University degree Doctorate Country Fax Qualifications Project summary (Maximum 300 words) page 20 of 23

21 Requested budget (one sheet for each applicant) Project title Year Personnel (please check max. one box per year) Ph D student Post doc Travel & subsistence [ ] Consumables [ ] Minor equipment [ ] page 21 of 23

22 Signatures Project title Applicants heads of institution (where appropriate): I agree with the herewith submitted application I guarantee access to equipment, facilities resources to conduct the project in my institution. Signature of the authorized institutional representativethe first applicant Date Signature of the authorized institutional representative of the second applicant Date Signature of the authorized institutional representative of the third applicant Date Applicants: We confirm that to the best of our knowledge belief, the information given in the application is correct. Signature of the Project Coordinator Date Signature of the second applicant Date Signature of the third applicant Date page 22 of 23

23 Annex C: Good practice conflicts of interest An important aspect of this code is the avoidance of any conflicts between personal interests the interests of the applicants. In the context of peer review of research proposals final reports, a conflict of interest might arise, for example, if a reviewer has, or has had in the past, a close working relationship, financial or personal connections with any individual(s) in the academic department(s) or organization (or any collaborating company or body) from which a proposal originates. Such interests may be indirect relate to immediate family members or any other persons living in the same household as the reviewer. Such circumstances may include the following: Relatives, personal ties or conflicts; Close scientific collaboration, e.g., implementation of joint projects or joint publications within the past 4 years; Direct scientific competition with personal projects or plans; Close proximity, e.g., member of the same scientific institution or impending change of the reviewer to the institution of the applicant or vice versa; Teacher/student relationship, as for PhD Postdoctoral advisors of a PI; Dependent relationship in employment during the past 3 years; Participation in ongoing or just previously concluded professorial appointment proceedings; Current or prior activity in advisory bodies of the applicant's institution, e.g., scientific advisory boards; Personal economic interests in the funding decision; Competitive relationship or common economic interests, e.g., common business management. The acid test is whether a member of the public, knowing the facts of the situation, might reasonably think the judgment could be influenced by the potential conflict of interest. page 23 of 23